I like that you have the pro/con in text along with the video. A lot of game videos have no information for the viewer outside of the video itself, and I like being able to better evaluate if I want to take the time to watch

Oh, but you actually have a full text review there too? If I hadn't gone there specifically looking for the video review, I might not have even noticed it was there. It looks like it's just an embedded video along with all the screenshots and such that would accompany an ordinary text-only review

The video screen/cap link definitely needs to be more obvious about what it is. The word "review" is small, obscured by the 'play video' triangle, and it's not even clear that it's a video review. One could even think it's just a lead-in banner to the text review.

Ok, onto the video itself

Oh man, immediate advertisement? I know ads can be a necessary evil, but if I were a random visitor I'd probably stop watching, unless I were visiting the review because someone recommended it. I have less patience for ads than other people might, though.

buffering took.... 10 seconds and counting... 20... if I'm a random visitor you're losing my interest... maybe 25 seconds or so before the review started. in contrast, the advertisement started playing immediately

intro music is cool, as is the gaming trend intro

intro is good, but with consider a shorter overall intro. 15 seconds doesn't sound long, but when you're talking about a 6 minute video, it is--especially since I just had to wait for an ad and a buffering screen. It takes 32 seconds of intro video before the review starts. Contrast that with Zero Punctuation's 3 second Escapist plug and 12 second Zero Punctuation episode intro

actual intro is great, voice sounds good and clear, a more professional voice than you hear in a lot of videos

really like the way you transitioned from old game video to the new game

voice and music audio balance seems good to me, but I can some viewers preferring the music stopping so you can hear the game better

I really really like how you just talk about the game however you feel like, without a set "GRAPHICS", "GAMEPLAY", "MULTIPLAYER" review progression. I think that seems so forced and unnecessary in other video reviews

I also really like how you show gameplay video throughout the whole video, instead of cutting back and forth to showing the reviewer's face or something

I don't know if this comes later, but it'd be nice to know up front what type of system you're using for the videos

Actual review content is great. Gives me what I need to know to evaluate whether it's the game for me

Tried to rewind the video to see something at the end again, and I had to watch the ad again.

Gaming Trend outro is super

the review summary may appear a little to briefly at the end. I'd ask to have it at the very end so it could possibly be frozen in place when the video ends, but then you'd have to move or remove the nifty GT outro

I don't know what to think about the text review and the narrated review being word for word identical. There's something off--like feeling like I just had someone read to me like I was a kid. I'd rather the text be different or absent, or maybe some written post-video thoughts of the reviewer? Or maybe call it out as a transcript?

I think I know what it is: seeing the word for word text laid out breaks the illusion that I just had someone talk to me about the game. The voice review turns into someone reading a website to me, rather than being an actual reviewer voicing his opinions

.All in all though, I'm very impressed! It was very professional in both appearance and content. The words spoken seem natural--it doesn't have that awkward feel akin to a high school student reading a paper out loud.

And it doesn't have that stupid feel you get from some review videos where the reviewer seems to be figuring everything out on the fly. "Uh, so this game it's uh... well I bought it at Best Buy and, I think it's pretty fun--oh I should mention that the box art is pretty cool."

First off, that was a very solid first attempt. Wonderpug hit all the major issues above, but I'll disagree with this:

Quote from: wonderpug on August 02, 2013, 05:25:27 PM

The words spoken seem natural--it doesn't have that awkward feel akin to a high school student reading a paper out loud.

I thought that's exactly what it sounded like. Reading the review word for word felt rather stilted and unnatural to me (apologies in advance for the GT member I threw under the bus by saying that), and the VO didn't seem to have much emotion. Other than that, it was great. Nice work.

Great feedback. Yep, that is Matt. We'll talk over this stuff and see what we can do. I'm kinda disappointed with the speed which the video came up. Apparently videos are served with a GameBoy while the ads get the bulk of the bandwidth. :/

First off, that was a very solid first attempt. Wonderpug hit all the major issues above, but I'll disagree with this:

Quote from: wonderpug on August 02, 2013, 05:25:27 PM

The words spoken seem natural--it doesn't have that awkward feel akin to a high school student reading a paper out loud.

I thought that's exactly what it sounded like. Reading the review word for word felt rather stilted and unnatural to me (apologies in advance for the GT member I threw under the bus by saying that), and the VO didn't seem to have much emotion. Other than that, it was great. Nice work.

While I guess there's some disagreement about the delivery, Matt has a good voice for audio reviews, and the good audio quality of the recording does oodles to make the whole thing seem more professional. Whatever equipment Matt did use, it at least didn't sound like he just used his built-in laptop mic to record a youtube video.

I don't know how you guys would like this direction, but one thing to consider is having a snippet of video of the reviewer himself at the beginning and end as endcaps to the review. If this becomes a regular thing, it could be neat to expand on the personal connection to the reviewer, so viewers can better recognize one from another and figure out whose opinions work best for them.

The other route is also valid, though. By having just a nameless, faceless voice, the review voice is more like an overarching Voice of GT, rather than that of a specific reviewer.

First off, that was a very solid first attempt. Wonderpug hit all the major issues above, but I'll disagree with this:

Quote from: wonderpug on August 02, 2013, 05:25:27 PM

The words spoken seem natural--it doesn't have that awkward feel akin to a high school student reading a paper out loud.

I thought that's exactly what it sounded like. Reading the review word for word felt rather stilted and unnatural to me (apologies in advance for the GT member I threw under the bus by saying that), and the VO didn't seem to have much emotion. Other than that, it was great. Nice work.

I agree with Gratch. Great job but sounds like he's reading.

I agree with ATB agreeing with Gratch disagreeing with Wonderpug. well done but the voiceover felt kind of bland.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

I've watched the Splinter Cell review. You're off to a good start. You've managed to avoid some of the pitfalls I see in other video reviews.

~The content sounds fairly natural. A lot of video reviews are written by people for text reviews, then read. Heavy adjectives and metaphors (for example) are fine in read text, but sound awkward and unnatural in speech. You avoid most of that. I don't know if the copy is being read verbatim or is improvised from an outline/talking points, but it isn't bad.~You spend your time showing the game, not the reviewer. A shot of the reviewer isn't a bad idea, but some places spend as much time on faces as they do on gameplay.~The video content you show actually reflects what is being discussed. That's a big thing that some sites never get right.

There were a couple of things that stood out as needing improvement.

~There was a lot of dead air. Some of that may just be because the game itself is so quiet, but there were a few times when the video was just silent for an extended period.~The volume of the gameplay was much lower than the reviewer's voice, making me either strain to hear the video or have to turn my volume up and down.

Those two can probably be solved the same way - fade the gameplay volume up a bit when the reviewer stops talking to let us watch, then fade it back down when he is narrating the review.

I thought the information presented in the review was helpful in deciding whether or not the game would interest me.

On the other side, I found the tone to be very monotonous and unemotional. He was pleasant to listen to, but he seemed uninterested. That improved a bit at the point where he mentioned Near Field Communications being how the figures communicate, but even then it was uneven and at the 3 minute mark I started looking at the timer to see how much was left. I finished the whole thing, though, and as I said, I liked the content of the review.

Overall, I would encourage you to continue with these types of reviews as I think my one complaint is easily fixed with a bit more practice.

I've watched the Splinter Cell review. You're off to a good start. You've managed to avoid some of the pitfalls I see in other video reviews.

~The content sounds fairly natural. A lot of video reviews are written by people for text reviews, then read. Heavy adjectives and metaphors (for example) are fine in read text, but sound awkward and unnatural in speech. You avoid most of that. I don't know if the copy is being read verbatim or is improvised from an outline/talking points, but it isn't bad.~You spend your time showing the game, not the reviewer. A shot of the reviewer isn't a bad idea, but some places spend as much time on faces as they do on gameplay.~The video content you show actually reflects what is being discussed. That's a big thing that some sites never get right.

There were a couple of things that stood out as needing improvement.

~There was a lot of dead air. Some of that may just be because the game itself is so quiet, but there were a few times when the video was just silent for an extended period.~The volume of the gameplay was much lower than the reviewer's voice, making me either strain to hear the video or have to turn my volume up and down.

Those two can probably be solved the same way - fade the gameplay volume up a bit when the reviewer stops talking to let us watch, then fade it back down when he is narrating the review.

Yep - great feedback on the audio. I've got work to do on learning how to properly fade it in and out properly. I learned 7-8 new things to do with my editing software this time around, which should make the next one better.

I thought the information presented in the review was helpful in deciding whether or not the game would interest me.

On the other side, I found the tone to be very monotonous and unemotional. He was pleasant to listen to, but he seemed uninterested. That improved a bit at the point where he mentioned Near Field Communications being how the figures communicate, but even then it was uneven and at the 3 minute mark I started looking at the timer to see how much was left. I finished the whole thing, though, and as I said, I liked the content of the review.

Overall, I would encourage you to continue with these types of reviews as I think my one complaint is easily fixed with a bit more practice.

That was reads the review verbatim - the Splinter Cell one was the first one that I wrote a script for and then tried to make it sound as natural as possible. As you said, practice.

I thought the information presented in the review was helpful in deciding whether or not the game would interest me.

On the other side, I found the tone to be very monotonous and unemotional. He was pleasant to listen to, but he seemed uninterested. That improved a bit at the point where he mentioned Near Field Communications being how the figures communicate, but even then it was uneven and at the 3 minute mark I started looking at the timer to see how much was left. I finished the whole thing, though, and as I said, I liked the content of the review.

Overall, I would encourage you to continue with these types of reviews as I think my one complaint is easily fixed with a bit more practice.

Yep. That was me. I quickly realized that what works in print is BOOOOOORING when spoken aloud -- my next video review will definitely be much more interesteing.

I agree with wonderpug about the intro length. I'm sure someone spent a lot of time creating it, but it's simply too long. It would be much better at 5 seconds - 10 seconds tops. Just about every credible online video expert I've read/heard emphasized the need to get straight to the content as quickly as possible due to short attention spans.

Otherwise, they're well done. Just don't let them replace the text reviews... I'm much more likely to read a 1000 word review than sit through a 5 minute video.

I don't know how you guys would like this direction, but one thing to consider is having a snippet of video of the reviewer himself at the beginning and end as endcaps to the review. If this becomes a regular thing, it could be neat to expand on the personal connection to the reviewer, so viewers can better recognize one from another and figure out whose opinions work best for them.

I don't know how you guys would like this direction, but one thing to consider is having a snippet of video of the reviewer himself at the beginning and end as endcaps to the review. If this becomes a regular thing, it could be neat to expand on the personal connection to the reviewer, so viewers can better recognize one from another and figure out whose opinions work best for them.

Yes - preferably shirtless.

Well....I have been lifting a lot of weights.....

As for the concern that these will replace writeups, nope - written word still rules here. These are just a supplement for those who prefer it.

I thought the information presented in the review was helpful in deciding whether or not the game would interest me.

On the other side, I found the tone to be very monotonous and unemotional. He was pleasant to listen to, but he seemed uninterested. That improved a bit at the point where he mentioned Near Field Communications being how the figures communicate, but even then it was uneven and at the 3 minute mark I started looking at the timer to see how much was left. I finished the whole thing, though, and as I said, I liked the content of the review.

Overall, I would encourage you to continue with these types of reviews as I think my one complaint is easily fixed with a bit more practice.

I felt pretty much the same way after watching the Disney Infinity review. It was very good overall, but could use some help in spicing it up to not just feel like reading the text review.

Oh, and maybe the timing of video shown could use a little work to match what is being said a little closer, so that when mentioning multiple characters maybe switch between a few, and when changing to talk about the Toybox mode maybe start with a shot that shows some of that unique interface. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.